ArticlePDF Available

Innovation Amidst Turmoil: A SenseMaker Study of Managerial Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis in Germany

January 2024
Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 43(1):285-318

DOI:10.3917/jie.pr1.0154

Authors:

Michael P. Schlaile

Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research

Veronica Hector

University of Hohenheim

Luis Peters

University of Göttingen

Lukas Bäuerle

Johannes Kepler University of Linz

Show all 7 authorsHide

We present the results of an exploratory study of transformation processes in “wicked problem situations”, faced by 623 German managers due to the COVID-19 crisis during summer 2021. Our study draws on a fruitful combination of sustainability transitions research, complexity theory, cognition in economics, meme theory, and sensemaking by using the SenseMaker® software platform as a data collection and analysis tool on patterns of meaning in managerial self-signification and interpretation of their own decisions. We contribute to current interdisciplinary debates by presenting an empirical study on sensemaking during the COVID-19 pandemic that uncovers the narrative patterns of managers during uncertain decision situations. Our results suggest that while new habits have emerged and human ingenuity and creativity is acknowledged, participants of our study appear to lack a strong vision of a sustainable future beyond green growth and the dominant techno-economic paradigm.

Content uploaded by Michael P. Schlaile

Content may be subject to copyright.

Innovation Amidst Turmoil: A SenseMaker Study of

Managerial Responses to the COVID‑19 Crisis in Germany

Michael P. Schlaile, Veronica Hector, Luis Peters, Lukas Bäuerle, Beth Smith,

Annette Hilt, Silja Graupe

Dans Journal of Innovation Economics & ManagementJournal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 (N° 43)2024/1 (N° 43), pages 285 à 318

Éditions De Boeck SupérieurDe Boeck Supérieur

ISBN 9782807380431

DOI 10.3917/jie.pr1.0154

Distribution électronique Cairn.info po ur De Boeck Supérieur.Distribution électronique Cairn.info po ur De Boeck Supérieur.

La reproduction ou représentation de c et article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les lim ites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le

cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduct ion ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque

forme et de quelque manière que ce so it, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est

précisé que son stockage dans une ba se de données est également interdit.

Article disponible en ligne à l’adresseArticle disponible en ligne à l’adresse

https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2024-1-page-285.htm

Découvrir le sommaire de ce numéro, suivre la revue par email, s’abonner...

Flashez ce QR Code pour accéder à la page de ce numéro sur Cairn.info.

VARIA

Innovation Amidst

Turmoil: A SenseMaker

Study of Managerial

Responses to the COVID‑19

Crisis in Germany

MichaelP. SCHLAILE

Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research(ZALF), Germany

Institut für Ökonomie, Hochschule

für Gesellschaftsgestaltung(HfGG), Germany

Flying Faculty, Department of Economics,

Tur k ish-German U n iversi t y, Tu r key

Department of Innovation Economics,

University of Hohenheim, Germany

michael.schlaile@ zalf .de

Veronica HECTOR

Department of Societal Transition and Agriculture,

University of Hohenheim, Germany

Institut für Ökonomie, Hochschule für

Gesellschaftsgestaltung(HfGG), Germany

veronica.hector@ uni -hohenheim .de

Luis PETERS

Institut für Ökonomie, Hochschule für

Gesellschaftsgestaltung(HfGG), Germany

luis.peters@ hfgg .de

Lukas BÄUERLE

Department of Socioeconomics, University of Hamburg, Germany

Institut für Ökonomie, Hochschule für

Gesellschaftsgestaltung(HfGG), Germany

lukas.baeuerle@ uni -hamburg .de

Beth SMITH

The Cynefin co(Cognitive Edge LTD), Wales, UK

beth.smith@ thecynefin .co

n° 43 – Journal of Inn ovation Eco nomic s & Management 2024/1 285

DOI: 10.3917/jie.043.0285

Annette HI LT

Department of Philosophy, Karlsruhe University of Education, Germany

annette.hilt@ ph -karlsruhe .de

Silja GRAUPE

President, Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung(HfGG), Germany

silja.graupe@ hfgg .de

ABSTRACT

We present the results of an exploratory study of transformation processes

in “wicked problem situations”, faced by 623 German managers due to the

COVID-19 crisis during summer 2021. Our study draws on a fruitful combi-

nation of sustainability transitions research, complexity theory, cognition in

economics, meme theory, and sensemaking by using the SenseMaker® soft-

ware platform as a data collection and analysis tool on patterns of meaning

in managerial self-signification and interpretation of their own decisions. We

contribute to current interdisciplinary debates by presenting an empirical

study on sensemaking during the COVID-19 pandemic that uncovers the

narrative patterns of managers during uncertain decision situations. Our

results suggest that while new habits have emerged and human ingenuity and

creativity is acknowledged, participants of our study appear to lack a strong

vision of a sustainable future beyond green growth and the dominant techno-

economic paradigm.

KEYWORDS: Innovation, Sensemaking, Narratives, Pandemic, Crises, Memes, COVID-19,

Sustainability

JEL CODES: B59, D80, H12, I19, L21, M14, O31, O35, Z13

1Despite many serious and catastrophic consequences for social and

economic systems, it has also been argued that the COVID-19 pandemic

has opened “windows of opportunity” (e.g., Kanda, Kivimaa, 2020; Dahlke

1. Funding information: The authors gratefully acknowledge funding for this study through the project

“Changing the foundations of economic thought in the midst of crisis – how economic actors create

new imagined futures for sustainable economies”, conducted at HfGG, funded by the Volkswagen

Foundation (grant number 99 116).

Acknowledgments: We have benefited from presenting and discussing earlier versions of this article at the

6th EAEPE Research Area [X] Workshop, 1-2 October 2021 in Volos, Greece, at the European Academy

of Management (EURAM) Annual Conference, 15-17 June 2022 in Winterthur, Switzerland, and at the

Forum Corona Crisis and Beyond, 5-7 December 2022 in Hanover, Germany. We are grateful for helpful

questions, comments, and feedback from participants at all three events, and most notably Gianpaolo

Abatecola, Matteo Cristofaro, César Hidalgo, Guido Neidhöfer, Davide Secchi, and Rehab Iftikhar, as well

as two anonymous reviewers for this journal submission. Finally, we would like to thank Peter Stanbridge

for his technical support and help with the statistical analyses.

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

286 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

et al., 2021; Alva Ferrari et al., 2023) for re-thinking, re-imagining, and funda-

mentally innovating economic habits and narratives towards more sustain-

able and regenerative ones (Waddock, 2019; Riedy, 2020a, 2020b; Waddock,

2020a, 2021; Riedy, Waddock, 2022). Such sustainability transitions (such as

the transition to a sustainable and circular bioeconomy; e.g., Pyka et al., 2022;

Schlaile et al., 2022) are usually long-term system innovations (Elzen et al.,

2004) in production and consumption modes that promote quality of life,

inter- and intragenerational equity and ecosystem stability (for overviews

of different approaches to sustainability transitions, see e.g., Loorbach et al.,

2017; Schlaile, Urmetzer, 2021). Yet, one of the most important and effec-

tive points of intervention for system innovations – potentially even in the

short term – are the paradigms, worldviews, or mindsets of economic systems

and their agents (e.g., Göpel, 2016; Waddock, 2020b; Friedrich et al., 2021;

Schlaile et al., 2022). Against this background, new approaches in economic

and organizational theory – especially in the field of decision theory – are

beginning to incorporate new capabilities (and limitations) of human agents

for both problem identification and problem solving in fundamentally uncer-

tain environments (Kurtz, Snowden, 2003; Snowden, 2005; Johnson, 2019;

Graupe, 2020; Bäuerle, 2021; Bäuerle, Graupe, 2023). However, the empiri-

cal operationalization of such sensemaking processes remains underexplored.

We argue that for the emergence of a possible new paradigm of economic

action, an exploratory, open-minded look at how managers already make

sense of their actions as of today might be a good starting point. Instead of

pitting a (possible) paradigm against, for instance, the still dominant rational

choice paradigm (e.g., Schlaile et al., 2017; Bäuerle, 2023), we tacitly assume

that a new paradigm might already be emerging in crisis-prone practices ‘out

there’. In this respect, the pandemic has been characterized by transbound-

ary dynamics and a high degree of uncertainty and unpredictability, which

has required rapid and innovative decisions by various leaders, innovators,

and other economic actors (Kuckertz et al., 2020; Crayne, Medeiros, 2021;

Medeiros et al., 2022; Schlaile et al., 2023).

Previous research on managerial sensemaking and decision-making

processes has often relied on applied psychology, linguistics, and respective

constructivist and qualitative approaches, using methods such as text and

discourse analysis, interviews, observations, and others (e.g., see reviews by

Brown et al., 2015; Golob, 2018; Cristofaro, 2022). In this regard, however,

the potential of combining narrative research with quantitative and mixed

methods approaches informed by evolutionary theory, complex systems

research, and cognitive science for both conceptual and empirical sensemak-

ing studies remains underutilized (see also Snowden, 2011; Lynam, Fletcher,

2015; van der Merwe et al., 2019; Cristofaro, 2022; Turner et al., 2022). Our

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 287

contribution addresses this gap by tackling the following research question:

Which (memetic) patterns of meaning are reflected in managerial sensemaking

during the COVID-19 pandemic? In our exploratory study, we apply a rather

novel mixed-methods approach, particularly informed by cognitive science

and complexity theory, using the SenseMaker® software platform as an

online data collection tool (e.g., van der Merwe et al., 2019; Guijt et al., 2022).

This tool allows us to merge and triangulate qualitative and quantitative data

in a structured and systematic way (e.g., Bryman, 2006), which complements

qualitative studies of sensemaking and facilitates gaining a more fine-grained

understanding of managerial sensemaking in the context of crisis situa-

tions and system innovations. The method utilizes a compositional statistics

approach in which quantitative data is used as a means to describe and quan-

tify the patterns that underlie the qualitative data, and as such all statistical

inferences are relative to the qualitative data and are analyzed using compo-

sitional techniques (Aitchison, 1986; Upton, 2017).

During the summer months of 2021 (July 5 to September 20), we admin-

istered our questionnaire to 623 managers in a diverse set of organizations

in Germany. While the SenseMaker® data collection and analysis software

has already been applied in different empirical settings such as civic engage-

ment and in the context of humanitarian issues (e.g., Bakhache et al., 2017;

Mager et al., 2018; Bartels et al., 2019; van der Merwe et al., 2020; Mausch

et al., 2021; Vasilescu et al., 2021; Wagner et al., 2022; Wamsler et al., 2022a;

Cunningham et al., 2023), we are – to the best of our knowledge – the first to

run a SenseMaker® project on a national scale in a managerial and business

context. Moreover, Germany is an important case due to its leading role in

the European economy and the national and international impact of its legis-

lation on COVID-19 protective measures on businesses and managerial deci-

sions. Our survey is characterized by an open-ended prompting question and

several follow-up questions that enable the participants to formulate stories

of their own experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic and to make sense

of their shared stories (self-signification) using quantitative and qualitative

methods2. This approach also promises to facilitate the capture of emergent

patterns within the shared stories, thus enabling transformation-oriented

researchers to uncover potential levers for system innovation, particularly in

unordered problem situations during the current crisis (Snowden, Rancati,

2021). It should be noted, however, that while participants shared stories of

varying length, in this article, we do not focus on the (qualitative) details

of the themes and narratives of the stories themselves but rather report and

2. Note that the self-signification of one’s own narrative also works to decentralize and increase validity in

the quantitative outputs (Guijt et al., 2022; van der Merwe et al., 2019).

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

288 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

interpret the quantitative results of our survey, in particular by means of plot-

ting and discussing collective patterns of signifiers, primarily using triadic

measures (see also Lynam, Fletcher, 2015; van der Merwe et al., 2019, for

details). However, to illustrate the connection between the patterns and the

narratives, we complement these quantitative findings with selected quotes

from the stories the managers shared.

In general, our study contributes to the current debates on sensemaking

and cognition in economic theory and organizational theory, in particular

by empirically exploring the patterns that emerge from the stories shared by

the managers on the SenseMaker® platform. More specifically, our study

reveals that in dynamic and uncertain decision-making contexts, individuals

seem to become increasingly aware of the potential for innovations in insti-

tutions and thought patterns (memes), suggesting a growing belief in their

ability to bring about transformative change. However, it is also observed

that people’s ability to envision compelling and sustainable futures does not

currently match their creative potential and ingenuity. Thus, our study also

contributes to the literature on sustainability transitions by pointing to some

blind spots that should be addressed in future research.

The paper is structured as follows: The next section presents a brief over-

view of the relevant literature at the intersection of (organizational) sense-

making and meme theory in the context of (changes in) complex systems.

The following section describes the sample and method of our online survey.

We then present the results from this survey and, thereafter, discuss our

findings and their implications before we draw our conclusions in the final

section.

Theoretical background

Sensemaking

Crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic can be understood as complex

and potentially “wicked problem” situations (Rittel, Webber, 1973; Dahlke

et al., 2021; Schlaile et al., 2023) characterized by a high degree of uncertainty

and unpredictability (Iftikhar, Müller, 2019; Högberg, 2021), in which lead-

ers, managers, and other decision makers are confronted with complex and

dynamic decision situations that challenge and disrupt established patterns

of meaning and action (Maitlis, Sonenshein, 2010; Christianson, Barton,

2020; Crayne, Medeiros, 2021; Förster et al., 2022; Medeiros et al., 2022; Roth

et al., 2022). Notably, one of the main prerequisites for deliberation in such

highly uncertain and complex contexts is the creation of new patterns of

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 289

meaning (see also Hilt, 2005, on a related note). These processes of seeking

orientation, structuring information and knowledge, and acting in the world

by creating new meaning have frequently been labelled sensemaking. However,

various schools of thought have emerged around the question of how humans

make sense of and create meaning in situations when confronted with new

information (and the necessity of making sense thereof). Consequently, the

literature on sensemaking (sometimes explicitly spelled with a hyphen to

highlight the connection to a particular school of thought, e.g., some of the

approaches mentioned below), has been divided into (at least five) rather

distinct but also somewhat overlapping perspectives (Browning, Boudès,

2005; Klein et al., 2006a, 2006b; Urquhart et al., 2016; Dervin, Naumer, 2017;

Golob, 2018; Cristofaro, 2020, 2022).

One of the most well-known approaches to sensemaking (especially in

the management literature) was developed by Weick (1995) and focuses on

organizational settings. According to Weick, sensemaking is a retrospective

process that occurs when the environment is perceived as uncertain or differ-

ent from the expected state and helps to structure the unknown and create

order (Weick et al., 2005; Maitlis, Sonenshein, 2010; Lam, 2014).

Similarily, Snowden’s naturalized sense-making (NSM) aims at explor-

ing and understanding complexity first and foremost within organizational

contexts (Snowden, 2011; Turner et al., 2022). However, NSM can be distin-

guished from Weick’s approach as it is much more rooted in the natural

sciences and uses an evolutionary model to approach uncertainty (Jones,

2015; Snowden, 2021). The NSM school of thought is closely linked to the

Cynefin® sensemaking framework (Snowden, 2021; Snowden, Rancati, 2021)

and the SenseMaker® software platform (van der Merwe et al., 2019; Guijt

et al., 2022).

Dervin’s (1998) sense-making methodology has been developed since the

1970s and is mostly applied in the field of library, communication, and

information science (Dervin, Naumer, 2017). It was developed as a means of

studying users of knowledge systems and designing systems according to their

needs (Dervin, 1998).

Klein et al. (2006b) conceptualize sensemaking as an individual mental

model (frame) that represents the state of the world. In their data/frame theory

of sensemaking, the authors distinguish between the mental model formation,

that is, a backward-looking process, which explains past events, and mental

simulation, a forward-looking process that explains how the future might

unfold (Klein et al., 200 6b).

Finally, Russel and colleagues (1993) have developed another perspective

of sensemaking in the field of human-computer interaction. Accordingly,

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

290 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

sensemaking involves the process of finding, collecting, and (re)organizing

information available in the digital world in order to achieve a deeper under-

standing and find ways to cope with huge amounts of data (Pirolli, Russel,

2011).

In this article, we draw primarily on the NSM approach that has been

mainly developed and promoted by Snowden and colleagues (Kurtz,

Snowden, 2003; Greenberg, Bertsch, 2021). For the sake of a working defini-

tion, we follow van der Merwe et al. (2019) in understanding sensemaking

as “a cognitive process that allows us to structure the unknown, to understand

and explain the world, and to inform action [...]. Through sensemaking processes,

information is interpreted and meaning assigned so as to inform behavior on both

the individual and collective scale” (p. 1).

Memes in the Context of Systemic Change

Notably, sensemaking processes are strongly influenced and informed

by the cultural context, prevalent memes and narratives, individual experi-

ences, and knowledge (Caracciolo, 2012; van der Merwe et al., 2019; Schlaile,

2021; Cristofaro, 2022; Schlaile et al., 2024). Memes can be understood as the

culturally evolved informational instructions that have been argued to shape

the narratives and schemata prevailing in our economic systems and thus are

at the core of (intentional and unintentional) changes in our ways of doing

business (Waddock, 2015; Schlaile, Ehrenberger, 2016; Waddock, 2016, 2019,

2020a, 2020b; Schlaile, 2021; Waddock, 2021). Memes can be argued to have

an impact on decision-making on several dimensions, including a cognitive

one (e.g., as interpretative frames or schemata; see also Schlaile, Ehrenberger,

2016; Cristofaro, 2022) and an emotional one, particularly in the sense that

emotional states and affective cues can have a strong impact on the resis-

tance (or willingness) to adopt and diffuse particular memes (e.g., Schlaile

et al., 2018, and references therein). While we are well aware of the contro-

versies around the notion of memes (e.g., Fomin, 2021; Gill, Price, 2022), we

deliberately use this term in line with the recent literature on the relationships

between memes, narratives, worldviews, mindsets, paradigms, and sustainabil-

ity transitions (Hedlund-de Witt, 2013; Waddock, 2015, 2016; Schlaile et al.,

2017; Waddock, 2019; Riedy, 2020b; Waddock, 2020a, 2020b; Laszlo et al.,

2021; Waddock, 2021; Schlaile et al., 2022). Consequently, investigating and

mapping memes as elements of complex (cultural and knowledge) systems by

way of capturing their codified or reified representations (e.g., as narratives)

has been suggested as one important pathway for studying and potentially

“managing” changes of complex systems (e.g., Waddock, 2020a), including

both organizations and entire innovation systems (e.g., Schlaile et al., 2017;

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 291

2021a). For a more detailed discussion of the theoretical background of the

conceptual relationships between memes, stories & narratives, and discourses

in the context of systemic transformations, we refer to Riedy (2020a, 2020b),

Waddock (2020b, 2021), and Riedy and Waddock (2022). In our view, the

SenseMaker® methodology offers a way to capture, visualize, and analyze

these narrative representations of memes.

Methods

Various methods can be used to study narratives during crises, including

semi-structured interviews with experts. Another interdisciplinary approach,

drawing on findings from cognitive science, complexity theory, and the

sensemaking literature (among others), is the use of the SenseMaker® soft-

ware platform (https:// thecynefin .co/ about -sensemaker/ ) developed by The

Cynefin Company (formerly known as Cognitive Edge). SenseMaker® can

be used as a survey tool (https:// thecynefin .co/ how -to -use -sensemaker/ ) to

collect and analyze short stories from people about a concrete lived experi-

ence. It allows participants not only to share their stories but also to self-

interpret them by tagging themselves in a set of predetermined signifier

questions which generates quantitative numerical data (Mager et al., 2018;

van der Merwe et al., 2019; Guijt et al., 2022; Wagner et al., 2022; Wamsler

et al., 2022a). Therefore, this method facilitates the processing and statisti-

cal interpretation of larger amounts of data and micronarratives than more

conventional narrative analysis techniques, while reducing researchers’

interpretation bias (Lynam, Fletcher, 2015). SenseMaker® has thus served as

an instrument for mixed-methods research in various types of settings (van

der Merwe et al., 2019).

For our study, we applied the SenseMaker® method to conduct a survey

among managers residing in Germany. We developed a questionnaire

consisting of a prompt (an open-ended question asking participants to share

a story about an important moment that illustrates their decisions during

the COVID-19 pandemic)3, various multiple-choice questions, and clarifica-

tion questions through which participants could self-signify the stories they

shared using widgets such as triads, dyads, and stones (e.g., van der Merwe

et al., 2019; Guijt et al., 2022, for terminology and further methodological

details). The method deliberately departs from the use of traditional scales

3. Prompt: The COVID-19 pandemic has put decision-makers like yourself in unpreced ented situat ions. Imagine

that, after a long time of protective measures against the virus, you are meeting a busin ess partner in person again.

Which example of a particular course of action you took during this time woul d you tell them about? Please share

your story below.

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

292 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/ 1 – n°43

as a means to increase the cognitive load placed on respondents, in order to

encourage them to consider the issue in more and different dimensions than

they typically would and to reduce gaming of responses (van der Merwe et al.,

2019; Clark, 2023). The questionnaire framework was designed and imple-

mented based on an extensive literature review on possibilities of and limita-

tions to economic sensemaking procedures under uncertainty and building

on previous and ongoing conceptual work by Graupe (2019, 2020), Ötsch and

Graupe (2020), and Bäuerle and Graupe (2023). The process of drafting, test-

ing4, and finalizing the framework took approximately three months (April-

June 2021). This work was done by the project team in collaboration with

partners from The Cynefin Company (who also provided a helpful signi-

fier compilation from previous SenseMaker® frameworks). Our framework

is divided into three main parts: 1) an inquiry into the narrative of the pres-

ent (how were decisions influenced during the pandemic, items 1-9 in the

appendix), 2) an inquiry into the narrative of the future (how will decisions be

influenced after the pandemic, items 10-14 in the appendix), and 3) multiple-

choice questions (MCQs) about the respondents themselves (items 15-21 in

the appendix). The signifier questions are designed based upon relevant

literature and represent abstractions of concepts (see also Bäuerle, Graupe,

2023); the signifiers each relate to a culturally broadly understood concept

but are subject to a degree of interpretation and adaptation to the individual

respondent context. Since the study addresses managers in Germany, the

framework was designed in German, but the results are translated by the

authors and presented in English for this article. An English translation of

the complete framework can be found in the appendix for reference.

We combined probability sampling with a convenience and purposive

sampling strategy (Douglas, 2022) to capture a large number of narratives

and to include diverse perspectives around decision-making in times of

uncertainty. Study participants were invited through our own networks5 and

through a market research company and panel service provider (Bilendi)6 to

obtain a diverse sample regarding the management level and organizational

background. After quality checks (e.g., deleting duplicate data, removing

all questionnaires completed in less than 150 seconds, or where no stories

were shared, etc.), our final sample consists of N = 623 participants (about

30% female and 70% male) occupying a managerial position (33% in upper

4. A pretest was carried out twice to test for possible technical errors, to receive feedback on the intel-

ligibility of questions and instructions, and to check for biases within responses and non-item responses.

5. As well as those of our collaborators from Senat der Wirtschaft (https:// www .senat -deutschland .de),

Deutsches Netzwerk Wirtschaftsethik (https:// www .dnwe .de/ ), and Weltethos Institut/Global Ethic

Institute (https:// weltethos -institut .org/ ).

6. The planned sample contained managers from middle management to board/executive management

residing in Germany.

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 293

management, 22% in middle management, 21% in lower management, 20%

in strategic/administrative management, and 4% in “other” management

positions) in a German private or public organization (heterogeneous sample

with regard to size and background of the organizations). The survey was

made available through both the SenseMaker® collector web version and

app and ran for 77 days from July 5th to September 20th, 2021. After partici-

pants had shared their story in the free text box, they were asked to answer

pre-determined follow-up questions. These were divided into three parts (as

mentioned above: present narrative, future narrative, MCQs). The follow-

up questions (eight triads, one dyad, two stones items, and two single select

MCQs [MCQ0; MCQ3 in the appendix]) aim at uncovering underlying

choice architectures and their affective signification (as calling forth positive

or negative feelings), for instance, asking how the participants perceive(d) the

world during the pandemic, whether they have developed new habits, how

they evaluated this change (as appearing positively or negatively grounded),

and which values guide(d) their decisions (see subsequent section)7. The

framework also enables inquiries into the narrative of the future and trans-

formative tendencies (see also Bäuerle, Graupe, 2023). Here, the study is

primarily interested in how participants perceive the future and evaluate

their own agency for shaping it. Finally, the five single-select (MCQ1-2 and

5-7 in the appendix) and one “select all that apply” (MCQ4 in the appendix)

MCQs included, concerning the socioeconomic position of the respondents,

not only help to ensure a diverse sample but also enable the detection of

patterns/contrasting results as presented in the following section.

Data analysis was conducted in an iterative process as outlined by Mager

et al. (2018). For this reason, we first analyzed emerging patterns within the

triads, the dyad, and stones, checked for outliers, and filtered triads with

MCQs and other questions of interest. We used Pearson’s goodness of fit test

to test the quality of the data and visualized correlations both by filtering

data (using the statistical analysis software integrated into the SenseMaker®

platform) and through cobweb diagrams (e.g., Agresti, 2013; Upton, 2017; as

also done by Wamsler et al., 2022b; see part 2 of the appendix for details).

Finally, we complemented the quantitative analysis with the shared stories,

which we analyzed inductively to explore the topics addressed.

7. Note that the f inal selection of values and principles t hat we chose to inquire about was, to a la rge extent,

inspired by and based on the decades of work done in the “Projekt Weltethos”/“Global Ethic Project” (e.g.,

Hemel, 2019; Küng et al., 2019). The five universal values they have identified are “non-violence”, “ justice”,

“truthfulness”, “equality & partnership”, and “ecological responsibility” (e.g., see https:// projektweltethos .de/ en/

about -weltethos/ ).

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

294 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

Results

Narrative of the Present

Experiencing the World

For the first triad (item 3), which asks about the general way in which the

world was experienced, there is a strong tendency towards the bottom with

large clusters of stories in the lower left, center, and right parts of the triad (as

shown by the percentages in Figure 1) (note that each plotted data point is

connected to a shared story as illustrated by the examples in the text bubbles

in Figure 1). During the pandemic, the majority of respondents had experi-

enced the world as uncertain and chaotic and/or full of new opportunities.

Unsurprisingly, only few respondents indicated that everything remained

the same. This is also reflected in the shared stories: At the bottom of the

triad, stories were mostly about challenges with organizing health measures,

teleworking, or financial issues, while in the stories tagged in the top corner,

respondents mainly stated that their companies were not affected by the

pandemic, or that they had nothing significant to report from that time.

Figure1 – Experiencing the world

Another, more interesting result can be found when we look at this ques-

tion in combination with the affective MCQ (MCQ0 in the appendix)

about the participants’ feelings towards the story they shared: Participants

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 295

with negative feelings about their story tend to regard the world as rather

unpredictable and chaotic, whereas those with very positive feelings towards

their story tend to view the world much more as being full of new opportu-

nities. Another interesting insight can be gained by combining this triad

with the question of whether the participants have founded the organiza-

tion they are working for. Founders tend to cluster rather on the bottom

right (full of new opportunities), whereas those that have not founded the

organization are much more evenly distributed among this triad. This find-

ing is also supported by Figure 3, which presents the results of a Pearson’s

goodness of fit test of the relationship between the variable ‘non-founders’

and the seven anchors of the triad “I experienced the world” in the form of

a cobweb plot (following Upton, 2017, as also done by Wamsler et al., 2022b).

Accordingly, there is a significant negative relationship (grey line) between

not being a founder and experiencing the world as being full of new oppor-

tunities, that is, the right anchor received significantly fewer responses from

‘non-founders’ than theoretically expected. The opposite is true for founders:

there is a significant positive relationship between experiencing the world as

being full of new opportunities and having founded the organization (again,

we refer the reader to part 2 of the appendix for more details).

Figure2 – Experiencing the world(founders vs. non‑founders)

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

296 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

Figure3 – Cobweb plot: non‑founder and triad 3 “I experienced the world …”

Note: The lines ind icate the c ategor y combinations that have the largest s tanda rdized resid-

uals(black=positive, gray=ne gative)

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 297

Habitualization

The fourth question asks about the evolution of habits during the

pandemic. As we can see in Figure 4, a very clear pattern emerges: 37% of

the respondents stated that they developed new habits during the pandemic.

These new habits mainly revolved around working from home8, setting up

health measures, and increasing collaboration and team cohesion9. There

are only small outliers toward the center and right, and toward the center

and left of the triad, indicating that relatively few people gave up old habits

or maintained their habits during the pandemic. In the bottom left corner

of the triad, the topics addressed are very diverse, ranging from business as

usual, neglecting or downplaying the pandemic, to very context-specific

stories, such as the report from a nursing home where visits continued to

be allowed (tagged in the left corner)10. In the right corner, the stories were

somewhat similar to the top as respondents mostly talked about changes in

their work and lifestyle due to working from home.

Figure4 – Developing, maintaining, or giving up habits

8. Sample narrative: “It was impressive how quickly we switched to remote working from one day to the next,

and how well we coped with it and still do. We took this situation as an opportunity to change our way of working

in general and make it more flexible—in the interests of our employees, too.”

9. Sample narrative: “Calling on all colleagues to work even more closely together in the difficult time during the

pandemic in order to overcome this time well an d perhaps also become stronger…”

10. Sample narrative: “Allowed the visit of relatives when all nursing homes closed their doors. In my opinion,

this is an act of benevolence, and it’s also necessary in times of crisis.”

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

298 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

Decision-making Approach

Triad 5 (Figure 5), which asked respondents how they made decisions, presents

a more mixed picture. A slight emphasis on the top corner of the triad demon-

strates that most respondents decided spontaneously and intuitively in their

shared stories (21%). The topics in these tagged stories mainly revolved around

implementing or dealing with telework and health policies. There are also a

few conspiracy stories in this corner11. There is also a tendency toward the

center (20%) and left (16% and 15%) sides of the triad, indicating that people

have different approaches for decision-making, either acting spontaneously or

after a process of deep contemplation and reflection12.

Figure5 – Making decisions

A very clear pattern becomes evident in triad 6 (Figure 6). Here, partici-

pants were asked whether they did different things (top), did things differ-

ently (right), or assigned new meaning to their actions (left). The majority of

stories were plotted in the right corner (28%), with a notable outlier towards

the center right of the triad. This shows that most people shared stories where

they did things differently (e.g., working from home). However, due to the

11. Sample (conspiracy) narrative: “It’s madness what was constructed here on the basis of a virus, which does

not concern 99.7% of the population. Now I know how 1933 came about.”

12. Sample narrative (positioned at the bottom in the middle, slightly biased towards left corner): “The …

pandemic not only showed people why we need to be more careful with our environment, but also made a number

of people rethink various processes that can contribute to accelerating the pace of the world and move it toward

further technological a dvancement. The lockdown gave me more time to work more on a few personal aspects,

including my family.”

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 299

outlier towards the center right of the triad, there also seems to be a connec-

tion with doing different things. We find ambiguous results for the stories

associated with ‘assign new meaning’: While many respondents reflected on

working from home and implementing health measures, employee safety,

team cooperation, and humanity were particularly emphasized and positively

grounded. In contrast, there are also some “conspiracy stories” related to the

pandemic in this sub-sample of stories13.

Figure6 – Doing different things, doing things differently,

or assigning new meaning

Individual Driving Forces

In the seventh triad (Figure 7), there are various clusters. However, the

strongest cluster is in the top corner (I acted because circumstances forced

me) with 24% of the data points. Two other clusters can be observed in the

right corner (I acted from a sense of responsibility) and the middle right part

of the triad. This cluster demonstrates a strong relationship between acting

out of circumstances and acting out of a sense of responsibility. Stories tagged

in the right corner reflect health measures and teleworking but can be differ-

entiated from the notion of forced circumstances as respondents highlight

13. For example: “It would take a lot more common sense to realize that the so-called "protective measures" are

first and foremost instruments of domination. Only in the second place it is about health. Merkel’s statement that

the "pandemic" would not be over until vaccines are used was treacherous. So, it was all about becoming Big

Pharma’s vicarious agent.”

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

300 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

the need to care for their employees and assume responsibility for their orga-

nization14.

Figure7 – Acting because of circumstances,

sense of responsibility, or visionary impulse

Guiding Values and Principles

Looking at the (multiple) values and principles that have guided the

decisions reported in the story (see violin plots in Figure 8), some interest-

ing observations can be made. First, many participants claim that securing

the company’s existence/maintaining of assets has mostly guided their deci-

sions (as represented by the thickness of the diagram), whereas profit and

growth do not seem to have played a major role for most. Interestingly, almost

all participants indicated that humanity (in the sense of humaneness)/justice

has played a rather important part in their decisions. Sustainability—espe-

cially in the sense of ecological responsibility—presents a rather ambiguous

picture, suggesting that this value was not that important for current deci-

sions during the pandemic. The other three values of openness for novelty/

creativity, conformity with regulations/compliance, and transparency/

honesty have also been claimed to be rather important (to varying degrees

as shown in Figure 8). While not shown here, an interesting observation

can be made when looking at whether participants expect these values to be

14. For example, as reflected in the following narrative: “Responsibility of all for all takes precedence over the

freedom of us as individuals in such a crisis situation.”

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 301

important in their future decisions: Whereas there are no significant changes

in most values, both profit/growth and sustainability/ecological responsibility

are skewed to the right, suggesting that both of these values are expected to

become more important again in the future.

Figure8 – Values and principles(violin plots)

Narrative of the Future

General Perception of the Future

Regarding the future, while participants were not asked to share a whole

story about their future expectations, they were asked to imagine the future

and self-signify their imagined futures (triads 11-13). A clear pattern emerges

in item 11 (Figure 9), which asks how participants perceive the future in

general: There are two strong emphases in both the right corner and the right

center of the triad. Hence, in relative terms (all three corners compared),

most respondents believe that the future can be shaped by acting in the pres-

ent (right corner, 28%). However, the second significant cluster in the right

center (29%) shows that there is a strong connection with the statement in

the top corner, that is, that the future is “open and unpredictable”. Another,

yet smaller, cluster can be identified in the top corner (19%), which under-

scores this connection.

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

302 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

Figure9 – General perception of the future

Imagined determinants of personal future

In item 12 (Figure 10), participants were asked how they imagined that

their own future will be shaped. As in item 11 above, there is again a strong

emphasis on the center right part (24%) as well as the right corner (23%) of

the triad. Accordingly, in relation to all three corners, most respondents indi-

cated that their future will be shaped by human creativity and ingenuity. The

strong emphasis on the center right connects this view with the statement

of the top corner: the future will be shaped by chance and new, unforeseen

events. In addition, there is an outlier in the center of the triad with a skew

to the right that further emphasizes this connection.

Figure10 – Imagined determinants of personal future

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 303

Expected Characteristics and Path

Dependence of Future Decisions

In the last triad (Figure 11) included in our study, various clusters can

be identified. The strongest emphasis is in the right corner. Hence, most

participants indicated (again in relative terms comparing all three corners)

that they imagine their future decision-making to be influenced by experi-

ences during the pandemic. Two further clusters can be identified in the

center (with a tendency towards the right center and the middle bottom part

of the triad). This shows a certain connection with the other two statements:

decision-making will be like before the pandemic (top); decision-making will

take new forms (left).

Figure11 – Shaping future decisions

The role of emotions

Finally, since emotions have generally been found to play an important

role in decision- and sensemaking processes (e.g., see Cristofaro, 2020, 2021,

2022; Ötsch, Graupe, 2020), we decided to take a closer look at the feel-

ings that participants reported having towards the story and if/how these

correspond to a position in a particular area of one of the triadic signifi-

ers. Although not shown here for the sake of brevity, we can, for example,

observe significant positive correlations between neutral feelings towards the

story and the top corner of triad 7 (i.e., “I acted … because circumstances

forced me”) and between the feelings towards the story and how the world

was perceived (triad 3). For triad 3, we observed significant positive correla-

tions between negative feelings and experiencing the world as uncertain and

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

304 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/ 1 – n°43

chaotic, and also between very positive feelings and perceiving the world as

full of opportunities.

Discussion

Our findings have multiple implications for research on managerial deci-

sion- and sensemaking and organizational change in times of uncertainty.

For example, triad 5 (Figure 5) identifies the neoliberal heuristic of the ratio-

nal, utility maximizing, and growth-oriented “homo economicus” as inappli-

cable and unhelpful from the agents’ perspective in uncertain decision situa-

tions. Rather, spontaneity and intuition seem to play the driving role in these

situations, as opposed to planning and calculation, or at least the latter are

challenged by the former – which is in line with the heuristics for unpredict-

able (complex and chaotic) decision situations as promoted by the Cynefin®

framework (e.g., Snowden, Rancati, 2021). At the same time, however, the

dominant strategy shared in the stories seemed to be the pursuit of rather

incremental adjustments, rather than using this unprecedented cesura for

radical change and rethinking the mission or purpose of the organization. In

other words, changing economic habits (including habits of thought) seems

to depend on an already perceived horizon of opportunities. Whereas all

agents act far beyond the simplistic homo economicus model, the sustain-

ability of these patterns depends on their general ability to productively read

and seize wicked problem situations.

Given that remote working is a ubiquitous decision-related issue, the

rather prominent “doing things differently” cluster for triad 6 (Figure 6) is

also rather unsurprising. However, in combination with the other clusters

to the right side and top of this triad, we can take this as evidence that the

“window of opportunity” for changing our ways of doing business towards

more sustainable ones – as claimed by sustainability transitions research-

ers (e.g., Bodenheimer, Leidenberger, 2020; Kanda, Kivimaa, 2020; Alva

Ferrari et al., 2023) – has not yet (fully) closed. That said, clear and strong

visions for this new future do not seem to exist (as indicated by Figure 7).

Most managers seem to have acted either because they felt compelled by

circumstances or by a sense of responsibility, rather than because of a strong

vision or imagined future. Combining these findings with the fact that both

profitability and growth as well as (environmental) sustainability/ecologi-

cal responsibility are expected to gain more importance again in the future

seems to indicate that there remains a strong belief that “green growth” is not

just possible but desirable, possibly reflecting the prevalence of the dominant

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 305

techno-economic paradigm as described, among others, by Blok (2021) and

Joly (2017), and supported empirically by Bogner and Dahlke (2022).

In the three triads concerning the future, we observe a somewhat optimis-

tic view of agency and imaginative capacities, which could be read as evidence

for the awareness of decision makers that habits, rules, norms, institutions,

and memes more generally are indeed malleable and subject to what might be

called “systems entrepreneurship” (Schlaile et al., 2021b). However, given the

path dependence of cultural evolution and creativity from a memetic point

of view (Schlaile, 2021; Schlaile et al., 2024), this malleability may depend on

“the right circumstances” (or – as sustainability transitions researchers call

it – “landscape events”; e.g., Geels, 2002), that is, the intentional or uninten-

tional destabilization, exnovation, and collapse of previously stable institu-

tional arrangements combined with the selection pressure of a transbound-

ary crisis that forces us to adapt and thus shape the co-evolution of a new

organizational ecology of (more sustainable) memes.

Finally, although we did not explicitly focus our study on emotions or

affective states, the significant positive correlations between some of the feel-

ings towards the stories shared by participants and their perceptions of the

world as uncertain and chaotic (correlated with negative feelings) or as being

full of new opportunities (correlated with very positive feelings) highlight the

relevance of emotions and affective states of managers for decision- and sense-

making as also explained in detail, for example, by Cristofaro (2020, 2021,

2022). Moreover, these correlations point to the need for further in-depth

research on the role of emotions for managing under uncertainty and in the

context of sustainability transitions in general (see also Coops et al., in press;

Martiskainen, Sovacool, 2021).

Conclusion

In this paper, we address the exploratory research question:

“Which (memetic) patterns of meaning are reflected in managerial sensemak-

ing during the COVID-19 pandemic?” Using SenseMaker® as a survey tool,

we were able to uncover interesting patterns and clusters, revealing that in

uncertain, fluid decision environments, people are indeed gaining more and

more awareness of the fact that institutions and habits of thought (memes)

can be innovated (arguably reflecting a sense of transformative capability). At

the same time, however, the imaginative capacities to create powerful visions

of alternative and sustainable futures are not yet on par with the creative

power and ingenuity ascribed to human beings. Ongoing turmoil and global

challenges beyond the pandemic, such as the war in Ukraine, suggest that

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

306 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/ 1 – n°43

decision-making under conditions of uncertainty is likely to continue or even

increase for managers around the world. This development has the potential

to both support and, arguably, hinder sustainability transitions. Against this

backdrop, our results suggest that there are multiple avenues for translating (a)

experiences of agency (Figures 4, 6, 13), (b) ethical convictions (Figures 7, 8),

and (c) the perceived designability of the future (Figures 11, 12) into directed

action in the present. However, in order to actually guide future practice and

possibly transform it into new habits and institutions, each of these pathways

has to be addressed, from an agent-centered perspective, through respective

capacitation of managers in higher education or on-the-job training. In this

respect, approaches such as (a) action learning (Pedler, 2011), (b) transfor-

mative moral education (Joseph, Mikel, 2014), or (c) futures literacy (Miller,

2018) might prove to be crucial resources, among other “future skills” (Spiegel

et al., 2021).

Although this study is exploratory in nature, we must acknowledge

several limitations. First and foremost, in this article, we only focus on the

patterns and quantitative results of our SenseMaker® study. A more elabo-

rate and detailed picture of weak signals and narratives of change may be

revealed by delving deeper into the stories shared by the participants, for

example, by means of thematic or content analysis. Another limitation is

the scope (managers in Germany) and time frame of the study (which was,

however, also due to the nature of the funding). Potentially more fine-grained

and robust insights could have been gained by means of a more compara-

tive (e.g., cross-national) or longitudinal survey, or by repeating this survey

at a later point in time to examine the actual (evolutionary) dynamics of

these patterns. In this regard, the same caveat applies as to previous studies

on organizational memetics (Schlaile et al., 2021a): we have presented an

insightful, yet only static, snapshot of an evolving complex system. Moreover,

future research on sensemaking processes of decision makers under uncer-

tainty could also aim at using SenseMaker® in a more participatory way, for

example, already during the stage of framework/questionnaire development

together with participants (or as a potential evaluation tool for interven-

tions), as suggested by Bartels et al. (2019), Lindeman and McAusland (2020),

and others.

Despite these limitations, our findings paint a picture of sensemak-

ing during the pandemic that opens up several avenues for future research:

While it may not have been too surprising that those who have negative

feelings towards their story also tend to perceive the world as chaotic and

unpredictable, it would be interesting to investigate why founders tend to see

more opportunities rather than chaos. Does this perception of opportunities

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 307

come from an entrepreneurial mindset rooted in systems entrepreneurial

schemata (Schlaile, Ehrenberger, 2016; Schlaile et al., 2021b), or is it simply

a result of the fact that founders usually tend to have more decision-making

power in their own organizations? Moreover, while the development of new

habits (Figure 4) during the crisis itself is rather unsurprising, it would be

important for future research to follow up on this question in order to inves-

tigate whether these new habits have taken root or if they are being pulled

towards the “old normal”. Finally, more research is also advisable on the

methodological implications and specifics of using the SenseMaker® soft-

ware platform in empirical research projects, especially since it is not a free

or open-source software environment.

REFERENCES

AGRESTI, A. (2013), Categorical Data Analysis, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley.

AITCHISON, J. (1986), The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data, London, New York,

Chapman and Hall.

ALVA FERRARI, A., BOGNER, K., PALACIO, V., CRISOSTOMO, D., SEEBER, N.,

EBERSBERGER, B. (2023), The COVID-19 Pandemic as a Window of Opportunity

for More Sustainable and Circular Supply Chains, Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain,

7, 100101.

BAKHACHE, N., MICHAEL, S., ROUPETZ, S., GARBERN, S., BERGQUIST, H.,

DAVISON, C., BARTELS, S. (2017), Implementation of a SenseMaker® Research

Project Among Syrian Refugees in Lebanon, Global Health Action, 10(1), 1362792.

BARTELS, S. A., MICHAEL, S., VAHEDI, L., COLLIER, A., KELLY, J., DAVISON, C.,

SCOTT, J., PARMAR, P., GEARA, P. (2019), SenseMaker® as a Monitoring and

Evaluation Tool to Provide New Insights on Gender-Based Violence Programs and

Services in Lebanon, Evaluation and Program Planning, 77, 101715.

BÄUERLE, L. (2021), Beyond Indifference: An Economics for the Future, Re a l-World

Economics Review, 96, 82-97.

BÄUERLE, L. (2023), Transformation, Agency and the Economy: The Case for a Grounded

Economics, London, Routledge.

BÄUERLE, L., GRAUPE, S. (2023), Reframing Economic Agency in Times of Uncertainty,

International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, 14(1), 31-46.

BLOK, V. (2021), What Is Innovation? Laying the Ground for a Philosophy of Innovation,

Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 25(1), 72-96.

BODENHEIMER, M., LEIDENBERGER, J. (2020), COVID-19 as a Window of Opportunity

for Sustainability Transitions? Narratives and Communication Strategies Beyond the

Pandemic, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16(1), 61-66.

BOGNER, K., DAHLKE, J. (2022), Born to Transform? German Bioeconomy Policy and

Research Projects for Transformations towards Sustainability, Ecological Economics,

195, 107366.

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

308 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

BROWN, A. D., COLVILLE, I., PYE, A. (2015), Making Sense of Sensemaking in

Organization Studies, Organization Studies, 36(2), 265-277.

BROWNING, L., BOUDÈS, T. (2005), The Use of Narrative to Understand and Respond

to Complexity: A Comparative Analysis of the Cynefin and Weickian Models,

Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 7(3-4), 32-39.

BRYMAN, A. (2006), Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How Is It

Done?, Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113.

CARACCIOLO, M. (2012), Narrative, Meaning, Interpretation: An Enactivist Approach,

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 367-384.

CHRISTIANSON, M. K., BARTON, M. A. (2020), Sensemaking in the Time of COVID-

19, Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 572-576.

CLARK, A. (2023), The Experience Machine: How Our Minds Predict and Shape Reality,

New York, Pantheon Books.

COOPS, F., BOGNER, K., HUMMELS, C. (in press), Letting Go in Sustainability

Transitions: Designing Spaces for the Unavoidable Companion of Change, in

Egenhoefer, B. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Design, 2nd Edition, London,

Routledge.

CRAYNE, M. P., MEDEIROS, K. E. (2021), Making Sense of Crisis: Charismatic,

Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership in Response to COVID-19, American

Psychologist, 76(3), 462-474.

CRISTOFARO, M. (2020), “I Feel and Think, Therefore I Am”: An Affect-Cognitive

Theory of Management Decisions, European Management Journal, 38(2), 344-355.

CRISTOFARO, M. (ed.) (2021), Emotion, Cognition, and Their Marvellous Interplay

in Managerial Decision-Making, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, Cambridge Scholars

Publishing.

CRISTOFARO, M. (2022), Organizational Sensemaking: A Systematic Review and a

Co-Evolutionary Model, European Management Journal, 40(3), 393-405.

CUNNINGHAM, C., VOSLOO, M., WALLIS, L. A., CANZAN, F. (2023),

Interprofessional Sense-making in the Emergency Department: A SenseMaker Study,

PLOS ONE, 18(3), e0282307.

DAHLKE, J., BOGNER, K., BECKER, M., SCHLAILE, M. P., PYKA, A., EBERSBERGER,

B. (2021), Crisis-driven Innovation and Fundamental Human Needs: A Typological

Framework of Rapid-response COVID-19 Innovations, Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 169, 120799.

DERVIN, B. (1998), Sense-making Theory and Practice: An Overview of User Interests in

Knowledge Seeking and Use, Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 36-46.

DERVIN, B., NAUMER, C. M. (2017), Sense-making, in McDonald, J. D., Levine-Clark,

M. (eds), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, CRC Press, 4113-4124.

DOUGLAS, H. (2022), Sampling Techniques for Qualitative Research, in Islam, M. R.,

Khan, N. A., Baikady, R. (eds), Principles of Social Research Methodology, Singapore,

Springer Nature Singapore, 415-426.

ELZEN, B., GEELS, F. W., GREEN, K. (eds) (2004), System Innovation and the Transition

to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy, Cheltenham, UK, Northhampton, MA,

USA, Edward Elgar.

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 309

FOMIN, I. V. (2 021), Как экономистам изучать мемы? Чего недостает (эконо)

меметике? (Размышления о книге Михаэля Шлайле «Меметика и эволюционная

экономика») [How Can Economists Study Memes? What Does (Econo)Memetics

Lack? (Reflections on Michael Schlaile’s «Memetics and Evolutionary Economics»)],

METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Social Studies, 11, 422-442.

FÖRSTER, C., PAPARELLA, C., DUCHEK, S., GÜTTEL, W. H. (2022), Leading in the

Paradoxical World of Crises: How Leaders Navigate Through Crises, Schmalenbach

Journal of Business Research, 74(4), 631-657.

FRIEDRICH, J., BUNKER, I., UTHES, S., ZSCHEISCHLER, J. (2021), The Potential

of Bioeconomic Innovations to Contribute to a Social-ecological Transformation: A

Case Study in the Livestock System, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,

34(4), 24.

GEELS, F. W. (2002), Technological Transitions as Evolutionar y Reconfig uration Processes:

A Multi-level Perspective and a Case-study, Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257–1274.

GILL, J., PRICE, I. (2022), A Meme‐based Research Programme for Management and

Organization Studies, International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(3), 307-455.

GOLOB, U. (2018), Sense-making, in Heath, R. L., Johansen, W. (eds), The International

Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 1-9.

GÖPEL, M. (2016), The Great Mindshift, New York, NY, Springer.

GRAUPE, S. (2019), The Basho of Economics: An Intercultural Analysis of the Process of

Economics, Frankfurt, Ontos Verlag.

GRAUPE, S. (2020), Change Is Always as a Last Resort Change in Habits of Thought: For

a New Biodiversity of Cognition in the Face of Today’s Crisis, International Journal of

Pluralism and Economics Education, 11(3), 243-254.

GREENBERG, R., BERTSCH, B. (eds) (2021), Cynefin: Weaving Sense-making into the

Fabric of Our World, Cognitive Edge – The Cynefin Co.

GUIJT, I., VERONICA, M., HANCHAR, A., DEPREZ, S., MUCKENHIRN, R. (2022),

The Learning Power of Listening, Rugby, UK, Practical Action Publishing.

HEDLUND-DE WITT, A. (2013), Worldviews and Their Significance for the Global

Sustainable Development Debate, Environmental Ethics, 35(2), 133-162.

HEMEL, U. (ed.) (2019), Weltethos Für Das 21. Jahrhundert, Freiburg, Herder.

HILT, A. (20 05), Ousia, Psyche, Nous: Aristoteles’ Philosophie der Lebendigkeit,

Freiburg (Breisgau), Munich, Alber.

HÖGBERG, K. (2021), Between Hope and Despair Sensegiving and Sensemaking in

Hotel Organizations during the COVID-19 Crisis, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism

Management, 49, 460-468.

IFTIKHAR, R., MÜLLER, R. (2019), Taxonomy among Triplets: Opening the Black Box,

International Journal of Management, 10(2), 63-85.

JOHNSON, S. G. (2019), Toward a Cognitive Science of Markets: Economic Agents as

Sense-Makers, Economics, 13(1), 20190049.

JOLY, P.-B. (2017), Beyond the Competitiveness Framework? Models of Innovation

Revisited, Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 22(1), 79-96.

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

310 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

JONES, P. (2015), Sensemaking Methodology: A Liberation Theory of Communicative

Agency, Epic: Advancing the Value of Ethnography, [online, URL: https:// www .

epicpeople .org/ sensemaking -methodology/ , accessed March 24, 2022].

JOSEPH, P. B., MIKEL, E. (2014), Transformative Moral Education: Challenging an

Ecology of Violence, Journal of Peace Education, 11(3), 317-333.

KANDA, W., KIVIMAA, P. (2020), What Opportunities Could the COVID-19 Outbreak

Offer for Sustainability Transitions Research on Electricity and Mobility?, Energy

Research & Social Science, 68, 101666.

KLEIN, G., MOON, B., HOFFMAN, R. R. (2006a), Making Sense of Sensemaking 1:

Alternative Perspectives, IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70-73.

KLEIN, G., MOON, B., HOFFMAN, R. R. (2006b), Making Sense of Sensemaking 2: A

Macrocognitive Model, IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(5), 88-92.

KUCKERTZ, A., BRÄNDLE, L., GAUDIG, A., HINDERER, S., MORALES REYES, C.

A., PROCHOTTA, A., STEINBRINK, K. M., BERGER, E. S. C. (2020), Startups in

Times of Crisis – A Rapid Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Journal of Business

Venturing Insights, 13, e00169.

KÜNG, H., GEBHARDT, G., SCHLENSOG, S. (2019), Walls to Bridges: The Global Ethic,

Mesa, AZ, iPub Global Connection LLC.

KURTZ, C. F., SNOWDEN, D. J. (2003), The New Dynamics of Strategy: Sense-making

in a Complex and Complicated World, IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462-483.

LAM, L. M. C. (2014), A Micro-Macro Sense-making Model for Knowledge Creation and

Utilization in Healthcare Organizations, Dissertation, Aberystwyth University.

LASZLO, C., WADDOCK, S., MAHESHWARI, A., NIGRI, G., STORBERG-WALKER,

J. (2021), Quantum Worldviews: How Science and Spirituality Are Converging to

Transform Consciousness for Meaningful Solutions to Wicked Problems, Humanistic

Management Journal, 6(3), 293-311.

LINDEMAN, L. M., MCAUSLAND, A. (2020), We Are Here. From Personal Narratives to

Collective Insight: Applying SenseMaker in Palm Health Foundation’s Healthier Together

Communities, West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Health Foundation.

LOORBACH, D., FRANTZESKAKI, N., AVELINO, F. (2017), Sustainability Transitions

Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change, Annual Review of

Environment and Resources, 42(1), 599-626.

LYNAM, T., FLETCHER, C. (2015), Sensemaking: A Complexity Perspective, Ecology

and Society, 20(1), art65.

MAGER, F., SMITH, B., GUIJT, I. (2018), How Decent Is Decent Work? Using SenseMaker

to Understand Workers’ Experiences, Oxfam.

MAITLIS, S., SONENSHEIN, S. (2010), Sensemaking in Crisis and Change: Inspiration

and Insights from Weick (1988), Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551-580.

MARTISKAINEN, M., SOVACOOL, B. K. (2021), Mixed Feelings: A Review and

Research Agenda for Emotions in Sustainability Transitions, Environmental Innovation

and Societal Transitions, 40, 609-624.

MAUSCH, K., HARRIS, D., DILLEY, L., CROSSLAND, M., PAGELLA, T., YIM, J.,

JONES, E. (2021), Not All about Farming: Understanding Aspirations can Challenge

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 311

Assumptions about Rural Development, The European Journal of Development Research,

33, 861– 884.

MEDEIROS, K. E., CRAYNE, M. P., GRIFFITH, J. A., HARDY, J. H., DAMADZIC,

A. (2022), Leader Sensemaking Style in Response to Crisis: Consequences and Insights

from the COVID-19 Pandemic, Personality and Individual Differences, 187, 111406.

MILLER, R. (2018), Transforming the Future: Anticipation in the 21st Century, London, New

York, Routledge.

ÖTSCH, W. O., GRAUPE, S. (eds) (2020), Imagination und Bildlichkeit der Wirtschaft:

Zur Geschichte und Aktualität imaginativer Fähigkeiten in der Ökonomie, VS Verlag für

Sozialwissenschaften.

PEDLER, M. (ed.) (2011), Action Learning in Practice, Farnham Burlington, Vt, Gower.

PIROLLI, P., RUSSEL, D. M. (2011), Introduction to This Special Issue on Sensemaking,

Human-Computer Interaction, 26(1), 1-8.

PYKA, A., ARI, E., ALVA-FERRARI, A., URMETZER, S. (2022), The Bioeconomy

Transition Process: Sailing Through Storms and Doldrums in Unknown Waters,

Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 38(2), 35-61.

RIEDY, C. (2020a), Discourse Coalitions for Sustainability Transformations: Common

Ground and Conflict beyond Neoliberalism, Current Opinion in Environmental

Sustainability, 45, 100-112.

RIEDY, C. (2020b), Storying the Future: Storytelling Practice in Transformative Systems,

in Molthan-Hill, P., Luna, H., Wall, T., Puntha, H., Baden, D. (eds), Storytelling for

Sustainability in Higher Education: An Educator’s Handbook, Abingdon, Oxon, New

York, NY, Routledge, 71-87.

RIEDY, C., WADDOCK, S. (2022), Imagining Transformation: Change Agent Narratives

of Sustainable Futures, Futures, 142, 103010.

RITTEL, H. W. J., WEBBER, M. M. (1973), Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,

Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

ROTH, F., KALUZA, B., PFEFFER, K., RÜMELIN, E., KIRCHNER, J., OVERMEYER,

M., NEISSER, F., JACKWERTH-RICE, T., KILICASLAN, A., SAUTTER, J. (2022),

Innovation in Times of Crisis: How Civil Protection Organizations in Europe Coped

and Adapted During the COVID-19 Pandemic, European Journal for Security Research,

7(2), 139-161.

RUSSEL, D. M., STEFIK, M. J., PIROLLI, P., CARD, S. K. (1993), The Cost Structure of

Sensemaking, in Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 conference on Human

factors in computing systems, 269–276.

SCHLAILE, M. P. (ed.) (2021), Memetics and Evolutionary Economics: To Boldly Go Where

No Meme Has Gone Before, Cham, Springer International Publishing.

SCHLAILE, M. P., BOGNER, K., MUELDER, L. (2021a), It’s More Than Complicated!

Using Organizational Memetics to Capture the Complexity of Organizational Culture,

Journal of Business Research, 129, 801-812.

SCHLAILE, M. P., EHRENBERGER, M. (2016), Complexity, Cultural Evolution, and the

Discovery and Creation of (Social) Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Exploring a Memetic

Approach, in Berger, E. S. C., Kuckertz, A. (eds), Complexity in Entrepreneurship,

Innovation and Technology Research, Cham, Springer International Publishing, 63-92.

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

312 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

SCHLAILE, M. P., HECTOR, V., DAHLKE, J., PETERS, L., HILT, A., GRAUPE, S. (2023),

Crisis-driven Economic Change: Insights into Innovation, Fundamental Human

Needs, and Sensemaking During the COVID-19 Pandemic, in Henzler, I., Hues, H.,

Sonnleitner, S., Wilkens, U. (eds), Extended Views: Gesellschafts- und wirtschaftswissen-

schaftliche Perspektiven auf die Covid 19-Pandemie, Cologne & Vienna, Böhlau, 127-141.

SCHLAILE, M. P., KASK, J., BREWER, J., BOGNER, K., URMETZER, S., DE

WITT, A. (2022), Proposing a Cultural Evolutionary Perspective for Dedicated

Innovation Systems: Bioeconomy Transitions and Beyond, Journal of Innovation

Economics & Management, 38(2), 93-118.

SCHLAILE, M. P., KNAUSBERG, T., MUELLER, M., ZEMAN, J. (2018), Viral Ice

Buckets: A Memetic Perspective on the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge’s Diffusion,

Cognitive Systems Research, 52, 947-969.

SCHLAILE, M. P., URMETZER, S. (2021), Transitions to Sustainable Development, in

Leal Filho, W., Azul, A. M., Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A., Wall, T. (eds), Decent Work

and Economic Growth, Cham, Springer International Publishing, 1067-1081.

SCHLAILE, M. P., URMETZER, S., BLOK, V., ANDERSEN, A., TIMMERMANS,

J., MUELLER, M., FAGERBERG, J., PYKA, A. (2017), Innovation Systems for

Transformations towards Sustainability? Taking the Normative Dimension Seriously,

Sustainability, 9(12), 2253.

SCHLAILE, M. P., URMETZER, S., EHRENBERGER, M. B., BREWER, J. (2021b),

Systems Entrepreneurship: A Conceptual Substantiation of a Novel Entrepreneurial

“S p e cies”, Sustainability Science, 16(3), 781-794.

SCHLAILE, M. P., VEIT, W., BOUDRY, M. (2024), Memes, in Dopfer, K., Nelson, R.

R., Potts, J., Pyka, A. (eds), Routledge Handbook of Evolutionary Economics, London,

Routledge, 235-248.

SNOWDEN, D. (2005), Strategy in the Context of Uncertainty, Handbook of Business

Strategy, 6(1), 47-54.

SNOWDEN, D. (2011), Naturalizing Sensemaking, in Mosier, K. L., Fischer, U. M. (eds),

Informed by Kn owledge: Expert Performan ce in Complex Situat ions, New York, Psychology

Press, 223-234.

SNOWDEN, D. (2021), Twelvetide 20:10 the Fifth School, [online, URL: https:// www

.cognitive -edge .com/ twelvetide -2010 -the -science -question/ , accessed March 23, 2022].

SNOWDEN, D., RANCATI, A. (2021), Managing Complexity (And Chaos) In Times

of Crisis: A Field Guide for Decision Makers Inspired by the Cynefin Framework,

Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.

SPIEGEL, P., PECHSTEIN, A., TERNÈS, A., GRÜNEBERG, A. (ed s) (20 21), Future Skills:

30 zukunftsentscheidende Kompetenzen und wie wir sie lernen können, Munich, Verlag

Franz Vahlen.

TURNER, J., SNOWDEN, D., THURLOW, N. (2022), The Substrate-independence

Theory: Advancing Constructor Theory to Scaffold Substrate Attributes for the

Recursive Interaction Between Knowledge and Information, Systems, 10(1), 7.

UPTON, G. J. G. (2017), Categorical Data Analysis by Example, Hoboken, New Jersey,

Wiley.

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 313

URQUHART, C., LAM, L. M. C., CHEUK, B., DERVIN, B. L. (2016), Sense-Making/

Sensemaking, in Moy, P. (ed.), Oxford Bibliographies in Communication, Oxford

University Press.

VAN DER MERWE, S. E., BIGGS, R., PREISER, R. (2020), Sensemaking as an Approach

for Resilience Assessment in an Essential Service Organization, Environment Systems

and Decisions, 40(1), 84-106.

VAN DER MERWE, S. E., BIGGS, R., PREISER, R., CUNNINGHAM, C., SNOWDEN,

D. J., O’BRIEN, K., JENAL, M., VOSLOO, M., BLIGNAUT, S., GOH, Z. (2019),

Making Sense of Complexity: Using SenseMaker as a Research Tool, Systems, 7(25),

1-19.

VASILESCU, D., URSOI, A., PELEAH, M. (2021), The Power of Thick Data: Unveiling the

Hidden Facets of COVID-19 Impact and the Next Emerging Development Issues. Country

Case Study from the Republic of Moldova, Development Futures Series, UNDP Global

Policy Network Brief, September 2021.

WADDOCK, S. (2015), Reflections: Intellectual Shamans, Sensemaking, and Memes in

Large System Change, Journal of Change Management, 15(4), 259-273.

WADDOCK, S. (2016), Foundational Memes for a New Narrative about the Role of

Business in Society, Humanistic Management Journal, 1(1), 91-105.

WADDOCK, S. (2019), Shaping the Shift: Shamanic Leadership, Memes, and

Transformation, Journal of Business Ethics, 155(4), 931-939.

WADDOCK, S. (2020a), Thinking Transformational System Change, Journal of Change

Management, 20(3), 189-201.

WADDOCK, S. (2020b), Transforming Towards Life-Centered Economics. How Business,

Government, and Civil Society Can Build a Better World, New York, Business Expert

Press.

WADDOCK, S. (2021), Wellbeing Economics Narratives for a Sustainable Future,

Humanistic Management Journal, 6(2), 151-167.

WAGNER, A., STRASSER, J., SCHÄPKE, N. (2022), Overcoming Polarization in

Times of Crises: A Research Project on Trauma and Democracy with over 350 Citizens,

Wardenburg & Berlin, Pocket Project e.V., Mehr Demokratie e.V.

WAMSLER, C., OSBERG, G., PANAGIOTOU, A., SMITH, B., STANBRIDGE, P.,

OSIKA, W., MUNDACA, L. (2022a), Meaning-making in a Context of Climate

Change: Supporting Agency and Political Engagement, Climate Policy, 23(7), 829-844.

WAMSLER, C., OSBERG, G., PANAGIOTOU, A., SMITH, B., STANBRIDGE, P.,

OSIKA, W., MUNDACA, L. (2022b), Meaning-making in a Context of Climate

Change: Supporting Agency and Political Engagement – Supplementary Material

[online, URL: https:// ndownloader .figstatic .com/ files/ 37605936, accessed September

20, 2023]

WEICK, K. E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

WEICK, K. E., SUTCLIFFE, K. M., OBSTFELD, D. (2005), Organizing and the Process of

Sensemaking, Organization Science, 16(4), 409- 421.

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

314 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2 024/1 – n°43

Appendix

Part1: SenseMaker® Framework

1) Present Narrative

1a. The Corona pandemic has put decision-makers like you in unprec-

edented situations. Imagine that after a long time of protective measures

against the virus you are meeting a business partner in person again. Which

example of a particular course of action you took during this time would you

tell them about? Please share your story below:

1b. Please give your story a title or #hashtag:

2. (MCQ0) My feelings towards my story are...

Very positive/Positive/Neutral/Negative/Very negative/N.A.

3. (Triad 1) In my story, I experienced the world...

as always/as uncertain and chaotic/full of new opportunitier/N.A.

4. (Triad 2) I have…

developed new habits/maintained habits/given up old habits/N.A.

5. (Triad 3) 5. I have made my decisions...

spontaneously and intuitively/after deep contemplation and reflection/

following logical and/or rational analysis or calculations/N.A.

6. (Triad 4) It was important to…

do different things/assign new meaning to my actions/do things differently/

N.A.

7. (Triad 5) I acted...

because circumstances forced me/based on visionary impulse/from a sense

of responsibility/N.A.

8. (Dyad 1) In my story, I focused only on...

economic success/crisis management/N.A.

9. (Stone 1) My decisions were guided by the following principles:

Sustainability & ecological responsibility/profit & growth/transpar-

ency & honesty/openness for novelty & creativity /securing the company’s

existence & maintenance of assets/conformity with regulations & compli-

ance/humanity & justice/N.A.

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 315

2) Future Narrative

10. Please look ahead to a post-pandemic future. Describe your vision of

the future spontaneously with a title, keywords, or a #hashtag:

11. (Triad 6) In general, the future is...

open and unpredictable/determined by the past/malleable through acting

in the present/N.A.

12. (Triad 7) My own future will be shaped by...

randomness/chance & new unforeseen events/norms & rules/human

creativity & ingenuity/N.A.

13. (Triad 8) My future decision-making will...

be like before the pandemic/assume new forms/be influenced by experi-

ences during the pandemic/N.A.

14. (Stone 2) My future decisions will be guided by the following prin-

ciples:

Sustainability & ecological responsibility/profit & growth/transpar-

ency & honesty/openness for novelty & creativity/securing the company’s

existence & maintenance of assets/conformity with regulations & compli-

ance/humanity & justice/N.A.

3) Multiple Choice Questions

15. (MCQ1) Gender

16. (MCQ2) Age

17. (MCQ3) Degree of affectedness by the pandemic

18. (MCQ4) Type of organization

19. (MCQ5) Duration of employment

20. (MCQ6) Role in organization

21. (MCQ7) Founders of organization

Part2: Statistical Analysis(Example)

We performed Pearson’s goodness of fit test to test the independence of

categorical variables. We tested for independence for all variables mentioned

in the article and produced cobweb diagrams on this basis. Below, an exam-

ple of the variables “founder” and “I experienced the world” is presented.

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

316 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/ 1 – n°43

Null hypothesis H0: There is no relation between the variables “founder”

and “I experienced the world”

Alternate Hypothesis HA: There is a significant relation between the

variables “founder” and “I experienced the world”

Significance level (α) = 0.05

Data frequencies are considered as a table with I rows and J columns:

Rows correspond to triad “I experienced the world” (with categories center,

left (L), left-right (LR), left-top (LT), right (R), top (T), top-right (TR));

Columns correspond to MCQ “founder” (categories yes, no). We calculated

the expected frequencies (calculated by the row and sum totals of the table)

and compared every observed cell frequency with the estimated frequencies.

We performed the chi-squared test to test for independence (for a detailed

explanation, see Agresti, 2019; Upton, 2017).

Observed frequencies:

L T R LR LT TR Center

Yes 914 34 22 2 8 15

No 89 39 85 76 40 56 113

Expected frequencies:

L T R LR LT TR Center

Yes 16.93 9.1 6 20.56 16 .93 7. 2 6 11.06 22.11

No 81.07 43.84 98.44 81 .07 3 4 . 74 52.94 105.89

Chi-squared standardized residuals:

L T R LR LT TR Center

Yes -2.3159065 1.8430211 3.6389470 1.4805502 -2. 2242 55 7 -1.0690637 -1. 874 21 5 0

No 2.3159065 -1.8430211 -3.6389470 -1.4805502 2. 224255 7 1.0690637 1. 874 21 5 0

Chi-squared standardized residuals squared:

L T R LR LT TR Center

Yes 5.3634227 3.3967269 13.241935 4 2.19202 88 4.9473136 1.1428973 3.5126819

No 5.3634227 3.3967269 13. 241935 4 2.1920288 4.9473136 1.1428973 3.5126819

If the variables are truly independent, then approximately 95% of the

sij values (standardized residuals) will lie between the range (-2, +2) (or the

squared value < 4). Consequently, squared values greater than 4 represent

good chances of variation from independence and will result in lines drawn

in the cobweb diagram between the affected categories (the diagram repre-

sents the visual relationships of the residuals of the chi-squared test).

Innovation Amidst Turmoil

n° 43 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 317

We accept H0 if squared value < 4; we reject H0 if squared value > 4

p-value = 0.0001

p-value is smaller than significance level 0.05. We can reject H0 and the

results are statistically significant at the 5% level. There is a significant posi-

tive correlation between being a founder and the right corner of the triad;

significant negative correlations with T and LT.

M. P. Schlaile, V. Hector, L. Peters , L. Bä uerle , B. Smi th, A. Hilt, S . Graupe

318 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2024/1 – n°43

Reframing economic agency in times of uncertainty

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2023

The retrospective assessment of the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic has once again shown that humanity is often unable to deal effectively with existential issues until it is (almost) too late. This paper addresses and explains the shortcomings of mainstream economic thinking that contribute to this predicament, and proposes a reframed model of human capabilities. Its primary aim is to improve the scientific assessment of economic phenomena, therefore providing a methodology-oriented case study for the proposed model. In the context of a growing 21st century perma-crisis, such expanded visions of economic agency will prove crucial in various arenas of transformation.

Innovation in Times of Crisis: How Civil Protection Organizations in Europe Coped and Adapted During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Article

Full-text available

May 2023

This explorative study provides insights into how civil protection organizations can learn, be innovative, and develop their capabilities toward achieving greater organizational resilience. After the enormous impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, civil protection organizations had to actively shape crisis-related learning processes, particularly concerning workflows and organizational structures, collaboration with stakeholders, preparedness, risk analysis, digitalization, and the political framework. Empirical findings collected in Europe during and between the main pandemic peaks of 2020 and 2021 were analyzed for implications for policymakers and civil protection organizations. Key findings illustrate how important it is for civil protection organizations to respond quickly and adapt flexibly in times of crisis. In interviews with civil protection experts, respondents highlight the benefits of a partner network and the need for digital capabilities and data infrastructure. Other relevant factors in dealing with a crisis were found to be self-evaluation and the ability to recover from a previous wave while preparing for and responding to the next.

Interprofessional sense-making in the emergency department: A SenseMaker study

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023
PLOS ONE

Background Emergency Departments serve as a main entry point for patients into hospitals, and the team, the core of which is formed by doctors and nurses needs to make sense of and respond to the constant flux of information. This requires sense-making, communication, and collaborative operational decision-making. The study’s main aim was to explore how collective, interprofessional sense-making occurs in the emergency department. Collective sense-making is deemed a precursor for adaptive capability, which, in turn, promotes coping in a dynamically changing environment. Method Doctors and nurses working in five large state emergency departments in Cape Town, South Africa, were invited to participate. Using the SenseMaker® tool, a total of 84 stories were captured over eight weeks between June and August 2018. Doctors and nurses were equally represented. Once participants shared their stories, they self-analysed these stories within a specially designed framework. The stories and self-codified data were analysed separately. Each self-codified data point was plotted in R-studio and inspected for patterns, after which the patterns were further explored. The stories were analysed using content analysis. The SenseMaker® software allows switching between quantitative (signifier) and qualitative (descriptive story) data during interpretation, enabling more deeply nuanced analyses. Results The results focused on four aspects of sense-making, namely views on the availability of information, the consequences of decisions (actions), assumptions regarding appropriate action, and preferred communication methods. There was a noticeable difference in what doctors and nurses felt would constitute appropriate action. The nurses were more likely to act according to rules and policies, whereas the doctors were more likely to act according to the situation. More than half of the doctors indicated that they found it best to communicate informally, whereas the nurses indicated that formal communication worked best for them. Conclusion This study was the first to explore the ED’s interprofessional team’s adaptive capability to respond to situations from a sense-making perspective. We found an operational disconnect between doctors and nurses caused by asymmetric information, disjointed decision-making approaches, differences in habitual communication styles, and a lack of shared feedback loops. By cultivating their varied sense-making experiences into one integrated operational foundation with stronger feedback loops, interprofessional teams’ adaptive capability and operational effectiveness in Cape Town EDs can be improved.

Crisis-driven Economic Change. Insights into Innovation, Fundamental Human Needs, and Sensemaking during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2023

In dealing with uncertainty and complexity in times of crisis such as the Covid pandemic, both the economic sciences and people in decision-making positions are challenged to break through the boundaries of their traditional ways of thinking and to try out new approaches. Our paper takes this challenge as an opportunity to present two independently conducted but related studies that underscore the need to view innovation and cooperation in times of crisis from the systemic perspective of basic human needs. Specifically, the paper takes up Max-Neef's nine axiological needs and uses them to analyze both innovation processes during the first months of the pandemic in spring 2020 (first study) as well as the transformative potential of sense-making processes of German executives in summer 2021 (second study). The results show that a focus on the systemic nature of needs can bridge the gap between an individual's creative capacity and government regulations or socio-economic measures.

Leading in the Paradoxical World of Crises: How Leaders Navigate Through Crises

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2022

Unlabelled: Living and operating in a global world, the risk for a global economic crisis has never been greater. As ongoing events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the recent war in Ukraine or the sharply increasing inflation have shown, organizations need to be highly resilient to persevere in a crisis-prone world. Even though we know that crises serve as a focal lens on leadership behavior and leaders play a crucial role in these scenarios, little is known as to how leaders handle an existence-threatening organizational crisis. Using an inductive analysis of 32 interviews on crisis leadership, we show that in the case of an acute crisis, leaders apply different paradoxical behaviors to cope effectively with the situation and navigate their organizations through these events. More specifically, our study contributes to existing literature by, first, showing that the distinctiveness of crises results from the fact that leaders are confronted with paradoxes that they can otherwise smoothly separate in terms of time or organization, second, revealing that the leader's paradoxical behaviors as a respond are derived from their mindset to consciously recognize the contradictory demands of the crisis, and third, from their action in terms of a compressed situational leadership. By identifying six pairs of paradoxical behaviors, we demonstrate how leaders effectively deal with the unsolvable contradictions that arise from the crisis, and thus contribute to the organizations' ability to cope with crises. Supplementary information: The online version of this article (10.1007/s41471-022-00147-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Overcoming polarization in crises A research project on trauma and democracy with over 350 citizens

Technical Report

Full-text available

Dec 2022

The complexity and dynamics of current crises pose major challenges to democracy. In crises, fears grow and social polarization increases. Crises also evoke personal and collective traumatic memories. Finding orientation and cohesion becomes an urgent task for the preservation of democracy. The research question posed in this project is: Can understanding and more consciously dealing with collective trauma dynamics help strengthen our democracy and overcome polarization? This report presents the results of a multi-day, trauma-informed large group process, investigating the links between crises, societal polarization, democracy and collective trauma. The triangulative research applied SenseMaker software, focus groups and participatory observation. It focuses on processes of sensemaking and resonance (H. Rosa), as well as related changes during the group process. The results indicate that new formats of democratic practice are necessary in order to sustainably counter the effects of multiple and dynamic crises. The stresses and uncertainties to which citizens are exposed in the face of crises require social spaces in which communicative sense-making and understanding can take place. The trauma-informed large group process and the use of the SenseMaker represent a promising possibility to make the voices of citizens audible and representable. This can help to strengthen the societal dialogue and to overcome or at least mitigate polarization through the joint creation of meaning. They point to the possibility of a new kind of politics and a new quality of democracy.

Memes

Chapter

Oct 2023

This chapter makes the case for (re-)introducing memes into economics. While many scholars have (prematurely) rejected the notion of memes, we argue that by taking memes more seriously, economists could establish links between fragmented approaches and overcome an apparent bias towards mostly intentional and “adaptive” processes of innovation and technological and economic change. Moreover, by embracing the meme's eye view one can overcome questionable conceptions of creative genius and rationally optimizing agents, or at least complement them with a more naturalistic and informational perspective. In summary, studying memes means studying interconnected informational structures (often involving instructions) that can be socially transmitted and recombined, thus affording the emergence of innovations.

Reframing economic agency in times of uncertainty

Article

Jan 2023

The COVID-19 pandemic as a window of opportunity for more sustainable and circular supply chains

Article

Feb 2023

Managing complexity (and chaos) in times of crisis

Book

Mar 2021

This field guide helps to navigate in times of crisis using the Cynefin framework as a compass. It proposes a four-stage approach through which we can: - assess the type of crisis and initiate a response; - adapt to the new pace and start building sensing networks to inform decisions; - repurpose existing structures and working methods to generate radical innovation; - transcend the crisis, formalise lessons learnt and increase resilience. This guide stresses the importance of setting and managing boundaries, building informal structures, keeping options open, distributing engagement and keeping an ongoing assessment for the evolving landscape. Action items, real life examples and demonstrations complement the references to the developing theoretical framework.

Sampling Techniques for Qualitative Research

Chapter

Oct 2022

Heather Douglas

This chapter explains how to design suitable sampling strategies for qualitative research. The focus of this chapter is purposive (or theoretical) sampling to produce credible and trustworthy explanations of a phenomenon (a specific aspect of society). A specific research question (RQ) guides the methodology (the study design or approach). It defines the participants, location, and actions to be used to answer the question. Qualitative studies use specific tools and techniques (methods) to sample people, organizations, or whatever is to be examined. The methodology guides the selection of tools and techniques for sampling, data analysis, quality assurance, etc. These all vary according to the purpose and design of the study and the RQ. In this chapter, a fake example is used to demonstrate how to apply your sampling strategy in a developing country.KeywordsPhenomenon. Methodology. Research Question. Methods. Tools and Techniques. Purposive Sampling. Sampling Frame. Trustworthiness

Innovation Amidst Turmoil: A SenseMaker Study of Managerial Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis in Germany

Abstract

Recommended publications

Crisis-driven Economic Change. Insights into Innovation, Fundamental Human Needs, and Sensemaking du...

Der Gemeinsinn als dynamisches Fundament von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Für ein neues Erkenntnispa...

Enacting Economic Transformation. The Transformative Economic Capability (TEC) Approach

An Evolutionary Perspective on Corporate Sustainability Transitions: A Prosocial Approach